If you fell on to someone's front law in Texas they'd get away with shooting you.

absolutely

it's hard for foreigners to grasp at times the level of independence that states have. they govern themselves. the laws in my home state of MA are completely different from texas laws. the people are completely different, too.

you'll probably find european nations with more in common with each other than some states have in common with other states.

The guy would have been OK, had he not incriminated himself as provoking the incident .... He thought having the camera would support his belief that he was "Standing his ground", but instead provided all the evidence needed to show he was provocative and could have retreated.

it's hard for foreigners to grasp at times the level of independence that states have. they govern themselves. the laws in my home state of MA are completely different from texas laws. the people are completely different, too.

you'll probably find european nations with more in common with each other than some states have in common with other states.

For example they don't have absolutely mental laws on the books sanctioning murder if you manage to contrive a situation that you could spin has "self defense".

just a lil FYI: Zimmerman's defense will probably not use stand your ground self-defense. THey are going to argue simple common-law self-defense. Which is what I was trying to tell people from the beginning.

Where I laid out all the elements, and applied the facts of the case (the ones not in dispute) to the law to show how he was indeed covered by the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UglyPug

Stand your ground is a good concept, I believe. You should not have to try to retreat if somebody is attacking you. . That could result in you getting ****ed up even worse. . . But the law is often written vaguely, and in turn, can be used to cover certain instances that are not itended to be protected.

Still need to know more about this case, but it sounds like this should not be covered by stand your ground, nor common law self-defense. But I can't say for sure.

That's not what you were saying. Also, if you follow an unarmed citizen while carrying a gun, without cause, you are not automatically covered by the law just because you were getting your ass kicked. Nice try though.

For example they don't have absolutely mental laws on the books sanctioning murder if you manage to contrive a situation that you could spin has "self defense".

there is validity on some level to the mentality of a texan who wants a gun to protect himself

texas is a big place. depending on where you live you might be hours away from police assistance, medical care, etc. in those situations i'd appreciate the right to have a gun, and to use it if i had to.

it gets abused, though, for sure. this bloke with the camera and the gun is evidence of that. i'm just making a judgement based off of the video, but that guy had an itchy trigger finger, IMO. he wanted trouble, and he went looking for it.

Wait, so he stepped on to someone elses property claiming that he was standing his ground and defending himself? These guys weren't on his property?

That's automatic disqualification. Either way these things can be avoided not just by the guy with the gun trying to 'stand his ground' but the other person as well. If the other guy has a gun, walk away. It's a two way streak. If it was me, as soon as that guy was talking about "standing his ground", I would've ran back into my house. I don't have a gun myself so why push it.

I believe it is a good concept as well, just a little vague and this is what's causing problems.

It's not vague at all. You can't initiate a confrontation, and claim self-defense. Stand your ground, is for the other person. Problem is, dudes think the purpose is that under any circumstances, in a confrontation, you're allowed to use deadly force. Not if u initiated it tho! This case is open & shut to me, you can't show up at another person's house, make demands, flash a gun, and shoot somebody!